UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[43066]

If you used economic activity directly generated you’d end up subsidising road traffic massively more than rail.

I’m not at all sure this is correct. Rail use is heaviest in areas of high population density - “subsidising roads” in London isn’t going to be an adequate replacement for a decent railway and mass transit system.

Plus, as has been pointed out previously, many of the costs of roads are externalised (accidents, congestion etc.), whereas they aren’t for rail, so the true subsidy to roads is distorted downwards. The roads aren’t expected to pay for their own police force, for another example…

In general, if you had more working outside big cities people would spend their rail fares on something else

But we don’t, do we, so the point is irrelevant.

 

[Watershed]

My (albeit unrealistic/unachievable) aspiration would be to increase the fares into weekend "leisure hotpots" (Yorks, Leeds, Manchester etc) so as to at least make the drunken a**swipes that tend to infest these journeys pay their way.

I appreciate the sentiment, but how would that even work? Would you increase Off-Peak fares throughout the week, in which case you're destroying the leisure market during the week? Or have higher fares only during the weekend, in which case how does that work if you buy a period return such as an Off-Peak Return?

Pricing the fares higher also won't necessarily put off "undesirable" passengers. The type who have enough money to waste on gallons of the alcoholic beverage of their choice won't be put off by a 20% fare increase, and that's as much as you'd be able to raise fares in most cases before they reached Anytime levels. Clearly it would be completely unfeasible to suggest that Anytime fares should increase, as that would clobber commuters.

Greater Anglia are back into paying a premium to the government according to internal communications to staff.

Although of course that doesn't mean that the operation as a whole is unsubsidised, due to the Network Rail subsidy.

 

[43066]

The type who have enough money to waste on gallons of the alcoholic beverage of their choice won't be put off by a 20% fare increase,

Is having a drink while socialising with friends really wasting money?!

Although of course that doesn't mean that the operation as a whole is unsubsidised, due to the Network Rail subsidy.

It shouldn’t matter whether or not it’s subsidised. The more relevant question is what overall economic benefit that subsidy buys which as we know, on average, is positive on the railway.

 

[Snow1964]

DfT have just updated spreadsheet
Figures from column G (rail) vs pre pandemic

Mon 20 Mar 80%
21 Mar 80%
22 Mar 85%
23 Mar 91%
24 Mar 91%
Sat 25 Mar 96%
Sun 26 Mar 97%
27 Mar 96%
28 Mar 96%
29 Mar 96%
30 Mar 95%
31 Mar 89%
Sat 1 Apr 88%
2 Apr 88%

Interesting that last Sunday before school holidays was highest percentage, which suggests Sundays might be bad day to choose for engineering work

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain

www.gov.uk

 

[slowroad]

This isn't right though. Of course if you take the 10% modal share of passenger km and spread it over the entire UK road network, it isn't noticeable. But rail use is heavily clustered around where there is the least road capacity (urban areas/city centres). You'd need probably 10+ new 8 lane motorways into London to absorb the traffic from the railways shutting, which is clearly a non starter as the parking requirements would be ridiculous as well.

You are right on road traffic economic investment though. A similar investment of the size into HS2 into interurban motorway build/upgrades would have a huge impact on the economy, far more so than HS2. But I think the chance of anything like that happening is close to 0 with the political situation (look how much protesting there has been about the relatively small impact of HS2, the land take for a motorway scheme like that would absolutely dwarf it).

Perfectly fair point about the location specific impacts of closing the rail network. But full closure is not a realistic option - you’d shut the lightly used bits and reduce the subsidy on the rest….

The impact on road congestion would be very limited.

 

[yorksrob]

Perfectly fair point about the location specific impacts of closing the rail network. But full closure is not a realistic option - you’d shut the lightly used bits and reduce the subsidy on the rest….

The impact on road congestion would be very limited.

That would be unacceptable to non-motorists as rail is the primary inter-urban public transport system in the country.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting that last Sunday before school holidays was highest percentage, which suggests Sundays might be bad day to choose for engineering work

Though the weekend has always been considerably quieter than weekdays. Sundays returning to pre-COVID numbers better than weekdays doesn’t mean it would affect fewer people to close for engineering work then.

 

[slowroad]

That would be unacceptable to non-motorists as rail is the primary inter-urban public transport system in the country.

Would, for example, replacing diesel trains north of Perth and Aberdeen with (faster) electric coaches really be unacceptable? And if so, why?

 

[yorksrob]

Would, for example, replacing diesel trains north of Perth and Aberdeen with (faster) electric coaches really be unacceptable? And if so, why?

I think that to answer this question, one needs to look at the proportion of people undertaking such journeys by coach now, as opposed to those by train.

On many inter-urban flows, coach and rail compete for passengers, and while both have their pro's and con's, and both have their markets, in most cases rail takes a far higher share of these journeys, therefore passengers are already voting with their feet.

Coaches don't tend to be faster than the train now, so why would they be faster if electric - they will still be operating within the same road and traffic constraints.

What needs to happen is the diesel train being replaced by an electric train.

 

[slowroad]

I think that to answer this question, one needs to look at the proportion of people undertaking such journeys by coach now, as opposed to those by train.

On many inter-urban flows, coach and rail compete for passengers, and while both have their pro's and con's, and both have their markets, in most cases rail takes a far higher share of these journeys, therefore passengers are already voting with their feet.

Coaches don't tend to be faster than the train now, so why would they be faster if electric - they will still be operating within the same road and traffic constraints.

What needs to happen is the diesel train being replaced by an electric train.

I think coach and rail times are broadly comparable from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Inverness. North and west of Inverness coach is often faster. If you spent the £Xbn cost of electrification on road improvements the relative performance of (electric) coaches would further improve. The ongoing subsidy savings could be used to make coach fares very low. Seriously, what’s not to like?

 

[JonathanH]

Greater Anglia are back into paying a premium to the government according to internal communications to staff.

That is an odd way to put it, as if they are taking no revenue, they are hardly going to pay the Treasury to run the train service.

Is the actual implication that there is no net cost to the exchequer to run the Greater Anglia operation?

However, I find it impossible to believe that the Greater Anglia operation is a net contributor to the public purse with the cost of all the new rolling stock and twenty units spare (although not yet on lease).

 

[Trainbike46]

That is an odd way to put it, as if they are taking no revenue, they are hardly going to pay the Treasury to run the train service.

Is the actual implication that there is no net cost to the exchequer to run the Greater Anglia operation?

However, I find it impossible to believe that the Greater Anglia operation is a net contributor to the public purse with the cost of all the new rolling stock and twenty units spare (although not yet on lease).

It may (or may not) mean that there is no net cost to exchequer, depending on the height of the premium and the height of network rail subsidies for the region. What it does mean is that revenue for GA now exceeds operating costs, I think.

don't forget GA was one of the TOCs that brought in a lot of money before covid, and while there is a lot of new stock, this new rolling stock isn't necessarily more expensive to lease and operate than the old stock (the 379s were returned because of how high the lease costs were, and the 37s+mkII definitely weren't cheap to operate, for example). Training must have gotten cheaper, as they went from 10 to 3 types of rolling stock by my count.

Overall, I would say I'm not surprised GA is one of the first TOCs to start returning premiums to government again

 

[robert thomas]

I think coach and rail times are broadly comparable from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Inverness. North and west of Inverness coach is often faster. If you spent the £Xbn cost of electrification on road improvements the relative performance of (electric) coaches would further improve. The ongoing subsidy savings could be used to make coach fares very low. Seriously, what’s not to like?

The fact that I get travel sick in coaches and taxis

 

[Krokodil]

Although of course that doesn't mean that the operation as a whole is unsubsidised, due to the Network Rail subsidy.

This needs to be more transparent. Track access fees should be a true reflection of the cost of operating and maintaining the railway. The Network Grant should only fund enhancements.

I think coach and rail times are broadly comparable from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Inverness. North and west of Inverness coach is often faster. If you spent the £Xbn cost of electrification on road improvements the relative performance of (electric) coaches would further improve. The ongoing subsidy savings could be used to make coach fares very low. Seriously, what’s not to like?

Coaches are between a quarter and half of the on-the-day price of train travel on this route depending on whether you're returning. Given that the coach service between Glasgow and Inverness must carry fewer passengers than the train (both have a two-hourly direct service but trains have more capacity) there must be a reason that more people choose the train - the 20 minutes faster journey by train won't be the sole reason people stomach the considerably higher prices.

 

[greyman42]

Pricing the fares higher also won't necessarily put off "undesirable" passengers. The type who have enough money to waste on gallons of the alcoholic beverage of their choice won't be put off by a 20% fare increase, and that's as much as you'd be able to raise fares in most cases before they reached Anytime levels.

To listen to the news, i thought people were having to chose between heating and eating.

 

[dk1]

That is an odd way to put it, as if they are taking no revenue, they are hardly going to pay the Treasury to run the train service.

Is the actual implication that there is no net cost to the exchequer to run the Greater Anglia operation?

However, I find it impossible to believe that the Greater Anglia operation is a net contributor to the public purse with the cost of all the new rolling stock and twenty units spare (although not yet on lease).

It’s how it’s always been stated from those franchises that pay back a premium from how I remember it over the years. Not something that bothers me (as long as they keep paying my wages lol) just what we’ve been told in a recent email.

Although of course that doesn't mean that the operation as a whole is unsubsidised, due to the Network Rail subsidy.

No idea mate. Always loads of spin on anything involving railway finances.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

It’s how it’s always been stated from those franchises that pay back a premium from how I remember it over the years. Not something that bothers me (as long as they keep paying my wages lol) just what we’ve been told in a recent email.



No idea mate. Always loads of spin on anything involving railway finances.

The key thing is will the treasury still look for savings and cuts or leave Anglia alone to hopefully grow the business by enhancing services

 

[dk1]

The key thing is will the treasury still look for savings and cuts or leave Anglia alone to hopefully grow the business by enhancing services

Hopefully some more services returning from December.

 

[yorksrob]

I think coach and rail times are broadly comparable from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Inverness. North and west of Inverness coach is often faster. If you spent the £Xbn cost of electrification on road improvements the relative performance of (electric) coaches would further improve. The ongoing subsidy savings could be used to make coach fares very low. Seriously, what’s not to like?

It'll be about the only place they are then.

Given that the coach is already cheaper than the train, wouldn't rail passengers already have switched if they'd wanted to ?

 

[dk1]

It'll be about the only place they are then.

Given that the coach is already cheaper than the train, wouldn't rail passengers already have switched if they'd wanted to ?

I personally wouldn’t bother to go in the first place if it was by coach.

 

[yorksrob]

I personally wouldn’t bother to go in the first place if it was by coach.

I'd definitely be less likely to go as well.

I personally wouldn’t bother to go in the first place if it was by coach.

I'd definitely be less likely to go as well.

 

[dk1]

I'd definitely be less likely to go as well.



I'd definitely be less likely to go as well.

I’ll second that lol

 

[Meerkat]

As I’ve already pointed out I was responding to your (rather silly) comparison with John Lewis. The railway is an essential service for many, in the part of the UK that counts economically.

JL is a reasonable comparison to my non-London rail use. If they weren't there I would buy the stuff elsewhere or not at all. It isn't essential

As I’ve asked you before, why do you think we subsidise the railways at all? Is it because you think the government enjoys watching trains? Even this government clearly accept that there are economic benefits to doing so.

Significant parts of the current railway have economic benefits worth subsidy. A fair amount around the edges gets subsidy for political reasons rather than economics.
But that doesn't mean any particular project for increasing rail services is worthy of subsidy

So the concept of intercity rail travel doesn’t mean anything to you, and you think we’d be better off investing in coaches that take many hours longer than trains?

Intercity rail travel doesn't all need subsidy.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Hopefully some more services returning from December.

Hopefully, although I think it's no coincidence that GA have returned most pre pandemic services and have strong passenger numbers

 

[Stephen42]

DfT have just updated spreadsheet
Figures from column G (rail) vs pre pandemic

Mon 20 Mar 80%
21 Mar 80%
22 Mar 85%
23 Mar 91%
24 Mar 91%
Sat 25 Mar 96%
Sun 26 Mar 97%
27 Mar 96%
28 Mar 96%
29 Mar 96%
30 Mar 95%
31 Mar 89%
Sat 1 Apr 88%
2 Apr 88%

Interesting that last Sunday before school holidays was highest percentage, which suggests Sundays might be bad day to choose for engineering work

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain

www.gov.uk

The column for National Rail on that spreadsheet has a different methodology to the others. There's also several important caveats in the quality section. Quoted below are the most important bits across the two sections for interpreting the data.

Data labelled ‘National Rail’ is calculated by summing the number of journeys for the last seven days and expressing this as a percentage of the equivalent pre-Covid-19 week in 2019 or 2020.

Whilst considered fit for purpose for monitoring overall change in usage trends, there are several features of LENNON journey data which should be borne in mind when using it for this purpose. These are mitigated to some extent by reporting the data as a percentage of 2019 (or 2020) rather than reporting journey numbers themselves.

Adjustments have been made for bank holidays in England and Wales where an equivalent comparator date is available to use. On some occasions, such as over the Christmas and New Year period, when bank holidays have been moved, or when new bank holidays have been added, data have been suppressed because there is a lack of equivalent comparator date available to use. Because the published data is a seven-day rolling average, data for the days following a date which has been suppressed can be based on a rolling average with fewer than seven days of data. The impact of industrial action or other unexpected events which affect rail usage are not adjusted for. This means caution should be made when interpreting figures for specific days, especially when only one of either the post- or pre-pandemic dates contain a bank holiday. Such cases are flagged in the notes of the publication table.

LENNON daily passenger journey estimates and ticket sales are sensitive to occasional lump sum adjustments. For example, TfL issue zonal season tickets which allow travel on National Rail. Earnings from these journeys are passed between TfL and train operating companies via LENNON. When these earnings are reported and dropped into LENNON, this could look like a considerable change in journeys or sales on a given day. Again, this supports looking at rolling weekly totals and comparing to the equivalent week in 2019.

In short the data series is unusable for patterns over a short time period, most figures will be a rolling average across a week. Some figures may be higher or lower due to timing effects from the lump sum adjustments rather than travel patterns, sometimes it will be fewer than 7 days meaning the ratio is different for a 'week' with 4 weekdays and a weekend compared to 5 weekdays and a weekend even if the ratio was the same for a given day of the week in both. On a month to month scale it's maybe alright provided avoiding the peaks/troughs and looking at the normal values.

The tube data series is based on daily taps and has a much clearer pattern though will be applicable to a smaller area, weekends are closest to pre-pandemic usage or sometimes above with the weekdays lagging and Tuesday to Thursday higher than Monday and Friday. In absolute numbers though Thursday has the most journeys typically well over a million more than the Sunday.

 

[3RDGEN]

DfT have just updated spreadsheet
Figures from column G (rail) vs pre pandemic

Mon 20 Mar 80%
21 Mar 80%
22 Mar 85%
23 Mar 91%
24 Mar 91%
Sat 25 Mar 96%
Sun 26 Mar 97%
27 Mar 96%
28 Mar 96%
29 Mar 96%
30 Mar 95%
31 Mar 89%
Sat 1 Apr 88%
2 Apr 88%

Interesting that last Sunday before school holidays was highest percentage, which suggests Sundays might be bad day to choose for engineering work

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain

www.gov.uk

Within the figures there is a note that confirms they include the Elizabeth Line core section passenger numbers which wasn't the case per COVID so there not a direct comparison. It even states that "A like-for-like comparison of rail demand would therefore show a lower recovery than stated in this publication". The next quarterly TOC specific figures will give a good indication of were we are.

For comparison SWR are quoting 78% of pre Covid levels in their May timetable confirmation, https://www.southwesternrailway.com/other/news-and-media/news/2023/april/swr-confirms-may-timetable.

 

[Watershed]

This needs to be more transparent. Track access fees should be a true reflection of the cost of operating and maintaining the railway. The Network Grant should only fund enhancements.

In principle I agree with that, however that would likely see the end of most open access operations, including a lot of freight. Their financial models depend on the indirect state subsidies they currently enjoy, and the unfortunate truth is that most (if not all) such services wouldn't be replaced by franchised operators, if they were withdrawn.

To listen to the news, i thought people were having to chose between heating and eating.

Some people are. But you won't find them out drinking on a Friday or Saturday night.

 

[43066]

To listen to the news, i thought people were having to chose between heating and eating.

You keep saying that.

It’s not clear what point are you trying to make. Is it really so difficult to understand that the people struggling to pay their bills won’t be the same people who are living it up and going out drinking?

 

[Clarence Yard]

In principle I agree with that, however that would likely see the end of most open access operations, including a lot of freight. Their financial models depend on the indirect state subsidies they currently enjoy, and the unfortunate truth is that most (if not all) such services wouldn't be replaced by franchised operators, if they were withdrawn.

They actually don’t. For example, Hull Trains is on record as saying it would pay a path charge that related to the cost of maintaining and operating that part of the network, as long as it’s TAA was extended to compensate (because length of TAA awarded by the ORR is directly related to return). The ORR said that idea “had considerable merit”.

If Lumo paid a fixed charge on that basis, it would probably pay less to NR than it is going to via the ICC!

At the moment everyone is constrained by the EU derived charging rules. That will shortly change.

 

[Watershed]

They actually don’t. For example, Hull Trains is on record as saying it would pay a path charge that related to the cost of maintaining and operating that part of the network, as long as it’s TAA was extended to compensate (because length of TAA awarded by the ORR is directly related to return). The ORR said that idea “had considerable merit”.

If Lumo paid a fixed charge on that basis, it would probably pay less to NR than it is going to via the ICC!

At the moment everyone is constrained by the EU derived charging rules. That will shortly change.

I'm struggling to see how this is the case. The profit margins made by the OAOs are quite slim - how could they possibly shoulder a doubling (if not tripling) of access charges to incorporate the fixed element that they've been exempt from for many years, let alone if the charges increased to reflect NR subsidies?